Apple antitrust and Dolly Parton
Washington sharpens its axe
This week, the US Department of Justice and 16 state AGs came down hard on Apple. In a sweeping antitrust case that accuses Apple of all sorts of illegal, anticompetitive hardware and software related tactics, the DOJ has handed down one of the most, if not the most, aggressive tech antitrust suits in a generation. Other suits against Google, which are ongoing, are also enormous but I would argue have less immediate impact on the lives of typical American consumers.
What Apple does to build its “walled garden” - a closed ecosystem of hardware and software - is certainly illegally anticompetitive. It is now up to the DOJ to demonstrate that in court, which, of course, will be insanely difficult as Apple puts it’s multi-trillion dollar business behind fighting the case.
Since the suit was handed down, Apple has basically said that the case presents an existential risk to Apple’s continued existence. The thing is? It does. And I think that’s a good thing.
This is the part where I say that I am a huge fan of Apple’s products, and I always have been. I have been an iPhone user for about 15 years, I habitually watch their keynote product debuts, and my entire apartment is outfitted with little orbs that turn on when I say “Hey Siri.” I love Apple.
But Apple’s dominance is not merely the result of superior innovation, better ideas, and insanely good manufacturing logistics. Apple is dominant because it restricts its hardware/software interoperability with other services, it pilfers application developers, and it keeps the cost (both literal and figurative) of switching out of the Apple orchard insanely high.
Let’s go through some of the government’s claims with the help of Lauren Feiner, senior policy reporter at The Verge, and her consolidation of the DOJ case:
The government points to several different ways that Apple has allegedly illegally maintained its monopoly:
- Disrupting “super apps” that encompass many different programs and could degrade “iOS stickiness” by making it easier for iPhone users to switch to competing devices
In other countries, notably China, there are apps like WeChat which the industry refers to as “super apps.” Apple restricts the ways these apps can use its hardware in the US so that consumers are more likely to just use the Apple services. Have you ever tried deleting Safari from your phone?
- Blocking cloud-streaming apps for things like video games that would lower the need for more expensive hardware
Other big tech companies (who are certainly encouraging the DOJ’s pursuit of Apple) have aspirations for cloud gaming. Microsoft, for example, really wants to turn the XBox into more of an idea, less a physical thing. They want you to be able to play XBox on basically any screen you can connect to the internet. But Apple will not allow this.
- Suppressing the quality of messaging between the iPhone and competing platforms like Android
Those darn green bubbles. There is in fact a technology that would allow texts between Apple devices and Android ones to not look like absolute garbage, but Apple does not want to use it, because then it would make it easier for people to switch from an iPhone. They want the experience to be so bad that your friends do their marketing for them and tell you to buy an iPhone.
- Limiting the functionality of third-party smartwatches with its iPhones and making it harder for Apple Watch users to switch from the iPhone due to compatibility issues
You literally cannot use the Apple Watch with an Android.
- Blocking third-party developers from creating competing digital wallets with tap-to-pay functionality for the iPhone
No developer is allowed to use the onboard iPhone chip that makes Apple Pay possible. Developers can pay for a certain tier of developer access which they can then use to link their apps to Apple Pay, but they cannot use the hardware directly.
In response to virtually every single argument against Apple’s anticompetitive tactics, the company hoists two flags under which to march: Privacy 🏴 and Security 🏴. Apple’s argument is that by restricting developer access, creating as many hardware restrictions as it has, and maintaining a panopticon-level degree of surveillance over its App Store, that it is protecting consumer privacy and data security.
In fairness to the Cupertino stronghold, Apple’s privacy and security track record is very, very good compared to its competitors. They do not sell your information, their hardware encryption is top of the line, and they have done everything in their power to stop the government from breaking into your phones. It is a feat of engineering, for example, that so many millions of people are unlocking their phones with their faces and only very rarely are there security problems associated with that. They also have introduced multiple ways to stop third party developers from extracting data from you in unethical ways. Just ask Meta, who lost around a billion dollars when Apple introduced one tiny “Ask App Not To Track” hurdle to using the Facebook and Instagram iOS apps.
A statement from Apple says that the case “threatens who [they] are.” It does, and it should. After all, the government represents the people. The people are the very consumers and very laborers in the mobile software ecosystem who are having their options dramatically limited by Apple’s tactics. There is no “free market” here, there is only the richest company on Earth manipulating the ecosystem to extract more and more from us while delivering less and less on the other end.
arachne music corner
Anyway! Time to listen to music from my Apple service on my Apple device while I type this on my Apple computer.
I have had two albums on repeat this week: Deeper Well, the new album from Kacey Musgraves, and Jolene, Dolly Parton’s 1974 rocket fuel. I want to talk briefly about Jolene.
With just over fifty years between me and the release of that album, it is amazing how fantastically it holds up. The production is precise, the songs are timeless, and its influence across generations of songwriters is incredibly present. Just listen to Deeper Well by Kacey Musgraves!
Not only does she shine on some more narrative, folky songs like “Cracker Jack,” a song about a dog, but then you get something like “I Will Always Love You” which dredges to just the most profound emotional depths without feeling corny or schmaltzy. Listening to her young voice on that “and I……” just rips me apart. These songs were new in 1974, but it is hard not to feel somehow that they have been around forever. Songs like “Living on Memories of You” or the cheeky “Last Night’s Lovin’” feel like they were drawn down from a starry Appalachian sky, gifted to us mortal humans by some kind of mythic intervention the cosmos made in Dolly Parton’s life.
But of course, there is no myth. There is only Dolly, that guitar, and the shimmer and charm of that voice.
Listen to Jolene by Dolly Parton below: